tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5613081770123094957.post6082296210048570602..comments2016-04-09T10:41:18.891-07:00Comments on Boston Bombing News: Tilting the Scales of Justice Toward DeathWoody Boxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13993092457193330662noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5613081770123094957.post-68304627118642500762015-09-13T18:17:06.660-07:002015-09-13T18:17:06.660-07:00I beg to differ on the government's moral obli...I beg to differ on the government's moral obligation. This is a capital case and therefore there is a moral obigation to consider and present to the jury all and any mitigation. <br /><br />As has been pointed out elsewhere, even those who believe that the defendant was proven unequivicably guilty should object to the fact that mitigation was withheld. If a plea deal had been reached prior to trial the subsequent and considerable cost to the taxpayer could have been avoided and the victims and their families would have been spared the ordeal of reliving their experiences whilst testfying at that trial.<br /><br />If you had followed this case you would be aware of the fact that "due process" was not afforded. This case was brought to trial in less than half the time considered "normal" in a death penalty case. The defense claimed from the onset that they could not and would not be prepared for trial in the time frame allowed. Whatever your opinion or beliefs in this case, you would surely agree that the law has to be applied evenly?<br /><br />No one is "making excuses."<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02349148107521766548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5613081770123094957.post-8963587525763914332015-09-13T16:31:23.945-07:002015-09-13T16:31:23.945-07:00Who cares if wrote an apology. I sure he would jus...Who cares if wrote an apology. I sure he would just about do anything to forgo a trial. And the prosecution and gov were under no legal or moral obligation to accept this letter as means to plea agreement. It did not hinder him from presenting a defense. As always, looking for ways to make excuses for this man. A criminal will not always get the outcome they so choose. You take chances when committing crimes. And as such, he was given a huge legal team, the best, and due process. You should be asking his attorneys about why they did to contribute this outcome, not the gov. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07424762360803992911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5613081770123094957.post-75320669183238222202015-09-11T11:31:28.775-07:002015-09-11T11:31:28.775-07:00Emphatically agree, WB.Emphatically agree, WB.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02349148107521766548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5613081770123094957.post-3234093789216446442015-09-10T11:04:05.752-07:002015-09-10T11:04:05.752-07:00Thank you for your work, Margo. Instructive and in...Thank you for your work, Margo. Instructive and insightful.<br /><br />What came into my mind when reading is a remark by a lawyer on masslawyersweekly.com (forgot his name, it was not David Frank) back in 2013 when it became clear that the prosecution was reluctant with giving their evidence to the defense.<br /><br />He wrote something like: "You better don't fiddle around with evidence if you want to bring someone to death". Correspondingly, one could say: "you better don't fiddle around with apologies and mitigating factors if you want to bring someone to death." The death penalty is immoral and obsolete; the US veneer that with a system of special laws, taking care painstakingly that the culprit's rights are not violated before he's killed. So it is even more outraging that in DT' might lose his life by outright cheating (or "tilting").<br />Woody Boxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993092457193330662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5613081770123094957.post-37980789683369741652015-09-10T11:02:09.940-07:002015-09-10T11:02:09.940-07:00Dieser Kommentar wurde vom Autor entfernt.Woody Boxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13993092457193330662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5613081770123094957.post-46052067630586758232015-09-10T08:54:09.472-07:002015-09-10T08:54:09.472-07:00Thank you Margo for an excellent article. I hope t...Thank you Margo for an excellent article. I hope that one of the sealed motions makes reference to the unconstitutional behavior of O'Toole in regards to suppressing the apology letter. Also, curious as to any time table for OT to respond to the motion for new trial, etc. as it's heading towards four weeks now. cv1975https://www.blogger.com/profile/13366173154811293057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5613081770123094957.post-56117203937299044012015-09-09T18:30:13.865-07:002015-09-09T18:30:13.865-07:00My sincere thanks, Margo, for this impactful and e...My sincere thanks, Margo, for this impactful and expansive article.<br /><br />I particularly appreciate that you have illustrated that secrecy on the part of the government has served to influence events, both judicial and otherwise, long before we ever heard of "The Patriot Act" and that the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is certainly far from exceptional as regards the exclusion of mitigating factors in the immoral and obscene pursuit of the death penalty.<br /><br />When I read the article published in the "New Yorker", to which you posted a link in your first paragraph, I was struck by Kevan Fagan's admission that had he known of the feelings regarding sentencing expressed by the Richard family, he might not have chosen to approve the death penalty. In the future, if this juror has ocassion to speak with or read the words of those who oppose the death penalty, will he come to regret having approved what amounts to state sponsored murder? All such jurors in all such cases bear responsibilty for the killing of another human being. How heavy does that weigh on the moral conscience? Perhaps for some not at all, but for others I would imagine that weight could be soul destroying and leads me to question also the morality of any government which would place such a potential burden on its' citizens.<br /><br />Your third paragraph contains what is undeniably a powerful statement:<br /><br />"The suppression of Jahar's letter of apology was unethical, immoral, and also unconstitutional, demanding a swift reversal of the death sentence."<br /><br />Anyone with any understanding of the concept of a fair trial, justice, and indeed the constitution would know that this is the absolute truth.<br /><br />Thanks also to WB for making this article available to us.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02349148107521766548noreply@blogger.com